When the facts that we know do not make any sense, it usually means that we are missing some other critical piece of information. Given enough time, the answer will usually appear.

There is a question before us now in the Saucon Valley School District that seems incapable of resolution at any time now or in the future: Why would the Saucon Valley Education Association abandon a tentative agreement and put a new negotiation position on the table that is designed to fail? The proposal contains:

•6 percent to 7 percent salary increases for six years, reduced to three years, and retroactive.

•No change in health insurance contributions.

•No change in any benefits.

•Increased association control of graduate study subject, reimbursement and salary.

This new association proposal erases two years of work by both teams. It erases the final proposed agreement of the state fact-finder. Further, it exceeds by millions of dollars the association's starting proposal made at the outset of negotiations two years ago.

Given the consequences of this action by the association — the strike threats, the delay of the new school year, the stress on our children, and the harm to academics — the question remains: Why would the association put a position on the table that is designed to fail? Having already moved to the midpoint, the board cannot negotiate against a proposal that is in another universe.

All of the association's talking points in the press — our community wealth, board tax policy, board fund balance savings, cumulative teacher payroll, past teacher concessions, and district savings from retirements — have nothing to do with the one question that we deal with as a board. That question is not "What can we absorb in payroll cost?" but rather "What salary should we pay to individual teachers?"

The association wants to erase its own negotiating team history. The new leadership claims that for two years the negotiations were not communicated well enough to the teacher membership, and therefore all the work is invalid. This is not likely and not logical, and it seeks to absolve the association of responsibility for its own mistakes. The leadership admits to its failure to adhere to a minimum standard of negotiating conduct, but refuses to accept the responsibility.

So, at the cusp of a teachers strike in Saucon Valley, we ask again: Why has the association presented a proposal that is designed to fail, with all the related damage to our schools and community?

Susan Baxter, Edward Inghrim and Ralph Puerta are members of the Saucon Valley School Board and its negotiating team.